Supreme Court of California

The storytelling provision of California's "Son of Sam law," Civil Code section 2225(b)(1), which appropriates, as compensation for crime victims, all monies due to a convicted felon from expressive materials that include the story of the crime, is facially invalid under both the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution, art. I, section 2(a).

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/21/2002
• Published 02/21/2002

Judges

• BAXTER, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Rohde & Victoroff and Stephen F. Rohde, Los Angeles, for Petitioner., Dilan A. Esper;  Peter J. Eliasberg and Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles, for ACLU Foundation of Southern California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Weil, Gotshal & Manges, R. Bruce Rich, Jonathan Bloom, Heather R. Goldstein, New York, NY, Josh A. Krevitt, Redwood Shores, and Christopher J. Cox, Springfield, VA, for The Association of American Publishers, Inc., The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Magazine Publishers of America, Inc., and PEN American Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Corbett & Steelman, Richard B. Specter and Mark M. Monachino, Irvine, of Real Party in Interest., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carole Ritts Kornblum, Assistant Attorney General, Peter K. Shack and Kelvin C. Gong, Deputy Attorneys General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.